Thanks ebb tide! I'm up to 3,000 on this thread now.
Was Martin Luther’s revision of the Bible a return to the “true Bible” of the early Church?
Full Question
A non-Catholic co-worker claims there were early Christian councils that upheld the 66 books of the Old Testament, but the Catholic Church suppressed them, and it was Martin Luther who finally stood up to the Church and reclaimed the true Bible for Christians. Is there any truth to his statement?
Answer
No. There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.
It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
And it’s catholics who continue to insist the apocrphya is canon even though it is rejected by the Hebrew canon which runs from Genesis to Chronicles as attested to by Christ in Mtthew 23:35.
Why are you dragging Luther into it?
What’s he got to do with the topic of the thread?
Why are you dragging Luther into it?
What’s he got to do with the topic of the thread?
Or is this just a good opportunity to use to bash Luther..... again.....?
Thanks ebb tide! I'm up to 3,000 on this thread now.
You neglected to provide the link to Catholic Answers, which could have saved them the embarrassment of having their propaganda exposed for what is. Again.
Was Martin Luther’s revision of the Bible a return to the “true Bible” of the early Church?
The strongest evidence shows the apocryphal books were not included in the Hebrew Canon of Jesus day. The Palestinian canon from before the earliest (late century) conciliar lists Roman Catholics point to is held by many as being identical to the Protestant Old Testament, differing only in the arrangement and number of the books, while the Alexandrian canon, referred to as the Septuagint is seen as identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to. Note that the so-called “Council” of Jamnia, and see below, is considered to be theoretical, with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia) The Catholic Encyclopedia itself affirms the Palestinian canon as consisting of the same books:
“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
Thus, together with the 27 book N.T. canon that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism hold in common, and which was overall settled early in church history, the 66 book canon of Protestantism clearly has ancient support.
The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, which is seen to reflect the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, which divides books the Jews referred to as single works.
Researchers also state,
[Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."
Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division
While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)
● The available historical evidence indicates that in the Jewish mind a collection of books existed from at least 400 B.C. in three groups, two of them fluid, 22 (24 by another manner of counting) in number, which were considered by the Jews from among the many other existing books as the only ones for which they would die rather than add to or take away from them, books which they considered veritably from God...The Apocrypha are not included. (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/11_apocrypha_young.pdf)
● Although some apocryphal books contain a few texts which correspond to New Testament ones, this is also true of some works which are found outside the apocrypha, which the Bible sometimes quotes from. (Acts 17:28; Jude 1:14) Texts from the apocrypha were occasionally quoted in early church writings, and were considered worthy reading even if not included as Scripture, but the apocrypha was not accepted in such early O.T. lists as that of Melito (AD 170) bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor, who gives a list of the Hebrew canon, minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:
More .
Nor does the LXX or DSS prove the deuterocanonical were part of Scripture.
Were there any infallible, indisputable early Christian councils that upheld the Catholic canon?
No, “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus,
The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.
Is the canon of Trent the same as that of Hippo and Carthage?
Not only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent arguably following a weaker scholarly tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, but it is a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils:
“The claim that Hippo & Carthage approved the same canonical list as Trent is wrong. Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) received the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras [Ezra in the Hebrew spelling] as canonical Scripture, which Innocent I approved. However, the Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1 Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage ( along with Innocent I) received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo & Carthage accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and called it 3 Esdras.” More
Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, states,
► "This is a matter of record, not of interpretation. On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence.
It is a historical fact." Responding to this, Protestant apologist James Swan states,
► “Let's grant Michuta's assertion that Trent passed over in silence on the book of Esdras in question. This means in the Roman system, as interpreted by Michuta, the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. In which case, their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles. It would also possibly mean, the canon is still open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and thrust Catholics into uncertainty.”
It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history.
Was it Martin Luther who first rejected the apocrypha, or from an indisputable canon, and which contained only books considered canonical by all the church since the beginning of Church history?
No. In all 3 cases. Luther had substantial scholarly Catholic company in his non-binding opinion on the the canonical status of apocryphal and other books, which continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first infallible, indisputable RC canon. After the death of Luther in 1546.
He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works.
Is the above true?
While that could be part of his motivation, yet despite Cath. psycho-history, Luther had scholarly reasons for rejecting James, which he quotes for support in other writings. The page to see on this is here .
He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28. The latter is true, and which Luther clearly stated he did and why, and once again, had scholarly Catholic company in so doing . Rome does far more in translating the words for NT pastors as "priest." As for Rm. 3:20 and 4:15, i will let a experienced researcher on this speak:
Almost all of the assertions in Peggy Frye's answer have been responded to before. For instance, on the Council of Rome, see this link, this link or this link. On Hippo and Carthage, see this interesting tidbit here and here. As to Luther "tossing" out books from the Bible. see this link. As to the "epistle of straw" see this link. As to Romans 3:28, see this link.
What interested me was Peggy's assertion,"He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15." This sentence appears to be a version of another sentence.
More .
So much for "Catholic Answers" credibility. here, which propaganda we see parroted profusely.
I can't say; for I have never seen his revision, to which you refer.
Have you a link to it?
What took the 'true and only' church so LONG to DECIDE and 'affirm' the CURRENT set of books that IT would 'accept'?